House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was income.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Liberal MP for Beaches—East York (Ontario)

Lost her last election, in 2011, with 31% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Oklahoma City Bombing April 24th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 19, a terrible and tragic event took place in the heartland of America. The bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City has shocked the entire world. The bombing has proven that no one is safe from the threat of terrorist activities and that terrorism can strike anywhere, even in the places that were once considered safe, as Canada witnessed at the provincial legislature in Prince Edward Island last week.

The most devastating aspect of the bombing is the number of young children who were killed in the blast. I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly justify the taking of lives, especially those of innocent children.

To the citizens of Oklahoma City, I am sure I speak for all members present when I say that our thoughts are with you at this time of sorrow. May you find the strength to rebuild and carry on. I am also sure that my colleagues will join me in condemning the cowardly act of terrorism.

Multiculturalism April 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I know I have a very short time so I will try to be brief. It is very difficult to be brief.

Multiculturalism is about a participatory democracy. The members opposite have consistently used the myths out there in society to defend a position instead of using that which they know to be the truth and the facts from the department itself.

My colleague and I were talking about experiences when we were growing up, experiences that are still happening today, where the teachers would stream whole classrooms of kids into vocational schools because they were Italian, Portuguese, Ukrainian, Polish or what have you. That happened then and it is happening now in Toronto with the Portuguese kids. It is happening with the black children. It is happening everywhere.

Multiculturalism tries to break down those kinds of barriers so that those children have equal access by providing race relations programs and holding discussions in schools to understand the differences, that these children are not inferior in any way. We were not. My whole generation was streamed into vocational schools when we came to this country. Multiculturalism empowered my whole generation and a lot of other Canadians who were of different backgrounds and did not have the ability.

I will tell another story. Earlier today we were talking about Harbourfront. Not long ago, in the late 1980s, a group was putting on a poetry reading. They were choosing the names of poets who were published but not yet well known across Canada. One of the staffers who happened to be of Ukrainian background said: "Oh, there is a really good poet I know in Toronto who is published in his community but not across the country. His name is Pier Giorgio DeCicco". They said: "This is for Canadians, not for foreigners".

The multiculturalism policy is intended to create participatory democracy, to give access, to give equality, to allow Canada to evolve into a strong nation.

We talk about the fact that we are Canadians and we have all these common symbols but it is a bunch of garbage and words because it means bloody nothing when it comes down to the facts and the lives of every Canadian, when it comes to the systemic discrimination that exists in all institutions.

I spent 20 years of my life working in Toronto with multicultural and immigrant groups. Most of that time I spent fighting the invisible discrimination and systemic barriers in the school systems and in social services that people could not access because they were not of Anglo background. To this day in metropolitan Toronto, one still cannot access the majority of the dollars for social programs unless one is from the Anglo community.

This is about participatory democracy, rights, equality and being a Canadian. The members opposite should inform themselves before they speak about myths.

Government Spending April 5th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

All Canadians want to ensure their tax dollars are used in a responsible way. Many complained that last minute shopping spree by departments at the end of the fiscal year should be monitored and controlled.

Can the minister outline what Treasury Board has done to put an end to the March madness spending binge?

Supply March 16th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for her well presented thoughts.

The commitment of the government to women as well as my commitment and that of my colleague is quite evident. Given that we are talking about women's economic equality, would it help and enhance women's economic equality much faster in all parts of Canada, including Quebec, if we were to get past and get over as quickly as possible this issue of separation which is in effect holding back the whole country economically, not just women?

Supply March 16th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech interesting. She was talking about individualism as if we stand alone and do not need anything else around us.

What I hear her saying is that this country has never had and does not have today any sexism or racism that we need to worry about, that there is no stereotyping of the disabled and the physically challenged. She very well knows those very people came before us and told us that of them, something like 2 per cent or less have university educations. Two per cent or less have proper jobs because they do not and cannot access jobs because of stereotyping. This is just the physically challenged. I am not even talking about the racial situation.

The hon. member was talking about individualism and being able to stand alone, being able to make our decisions alone without any laws, rules, collective understandings or agreements of any sort. There was a time when that did exist. At that time there was also child labour and slavery in the world without any of these laws. I do not believe she is suggesting that we go back to those times.

The hon. member is also forgetting that women had to fight. There is the Person's case. Why do we even celebrate Person's day now? Did we forget that we had to fight for the rights to be considered as people and persons? It was not that long ago and a lot of things are still happening.

We saw in the paper just recently where women in business cannot get loans and have to pay higher interest. They stand alone but it does not seem to help. Being individuals does not seem to help.

Yes, we have a charter. Why do we constantly have to go to the Supreme Court with charter challenges in order to get the rights under that charter? They do not automatically happen just because there is a charter. How did we get the rights under that charter? It was by fighting tooth and nail because they were not in the original draft of the charter.

How does the member expect to stand alone, individually isolated and through osmosis each of us will do the right thing only because we want to and because it has never happened before?

Immigration Act February 7th, 1995

Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that the bill is not dealing with people who have come to this country and have abided by the laws of this country, have respected the laws of this country and have tried to become productive

citizens of this country. It is talking to people who have tried to subvert the system in one way or another.

The hon. member mentioned an area on which I must say I agree and on which I have some concerns myself, that is, those individuals who have come here at a young age. To me, they are the product of our society and that is an area we must address and look at. That is an area I have had some difficulty with for some time because young people who come here at the age of four or five or whatever the age-I came here myself at the age of nine-once they have been here for 20 or 30 years they are products of our society. We need to take responsibility for that.

Apart from that, the rest deals very effectively with the problem that we have with people who come in and out of this country. Some of them have been deported and have come back in again and we do not even know they are in the country. We need to address those kinds of problems and make sure that once and for all individuals who refuse to abide by Canadian laws and who do not respect Canadian citizens are not allowed to stay in this country.

I do not see that as being draconian or unacceptable. It is the normal way any society should proceed. It should make sure that those immigrants who come into this country who are law abiding, who come here to improve their lives and to participate in and contribute to Canadian society are freed from the oppression sometimes that these individuals put on them in their own communities.

The bill speaks very clearly to this issue. It is important to make sure that when a country has open doors and open hearts the way we have that we also deal with the reality of some of the bad apples that do come in. They are a very small minority. I do not ascribe what the Reform Party has been doing over the past six months where we seem to be looking at the immigrant criminal of the day every single day. We need to deal with the issue, so let us get on with it.

Immigration Act February 7th, 1995

Madam Speaker, I am most pleased to speak on Bill C-44 now before the House.

All of us have heard countless stories of successful immigrants to Canada. As representatives of the Canadian people we know in each of our ridings the stories of people who have chosen Canada.

Even before there was a Canada, waves of immigrants, many penniless, swept ashore to scratch out a life in this new country full of promise. Thousands were escaping famine, grinding poverty, religious persecution and other horrors too awful to mention.

Today despite the progress the world has made, immigrants still wash up on our shores escaping the same horrors, the same persecutions and the same unimaginable poverty. Some still climb blinking and stunned into the sunshine of a Canadian dockside after a perilous trip by ship. More step fearfully off an aircraft at one of our airports.

However, each immigrant has the same questions and the same fears as the immigrants of 150, 200 or even 50 years ago had: Will this country allow me to live here? Can I work to make a better life for my family in this place?

This bill marks a progression in the approach of this government and this country in the respect we accord people from around the world who come here. It also marks a step forward in the way we see Canada's role as a protector of individuals who are refugees from oppression.

The reasons for this improvement are numerous. They are not comforting reasons at first glance, but when we take away the rhetoric and the posturing the reasons for this progression are abundantly clear.

Since the very first immigrants came to this country a very minuscule number of newcomers have entered this country as criminals, liars, thieves, murderers and opportunists who seek to prey upon newcomers and citizens alike. One would suspect that even the earliest Vikings who settled and explored this land had their share of people with less than honourable intentions.

It is an immutable law of the human condition that there has always been and will always be those who are bad people. It is also an immutable law of the human condition that the vast majority of immigrants to any country are hard working, honest, loyal and very grateful to the country that opened its doors and its heart to the newcomer.

This is true of Canada. It has been true in the past. It will continue to be true in the future. However, we have before us a collection of amendments to the Immigration Act that seek to change Canada's response to this law of the human condition.

Bill C-44 may become very popular with the racist element of this country. Some may point to this bill as proof that all immigrants are crooks and dangerous to this country but they are wrong.

Bill C-44 is designed to honour the hard working immigrants to this country. Immigrant gangs and criminals grab more headlines and take up more air time than stories about immigrants who have contributed to the growth of Canada. As a result, the public has a false perception of our immigrant community.

Statistically, new Canadians are less of a burden on the public purse than natural born Canadians. They are less likely to commit crimes, steal, cheat, rob and murder, and they only want that which our own forebears wanted when they came to Canada: to be left in peace to make their way in this land of opportunity.

Bill C-44 promises to play a pivotal role in removing the minuscule percentage of the immigrant population who seek to steal, deal, intimidate, extort, rob, injure and even murder.

This may seem like using the heavy hand of legislation to solve a small problem, putting out a candle on a birthday cake with a fire hose if you like. However, the confidence of the Canadian people in our immigration system has been dealt many sensational and disheartening blows through the evil actions of a very few. Therefore, we will make it easier for all of us, descendants of immigrants, old immigrants and relative newcomers, to remove the bad apples from our country. We will do this with the provisions of Bill C-44 and the Immigration Act.

These conditions will demonstrate to Canadians that we will act vigorously with the full force of the law. The naysayers will have no response. Canadians of all walks of life will continue to respond generously to newcomers, secure in the knowledge that the new Canadian down the street, across the hall or in the next seat on the bus is a person worthy of the privilege of Canadian citizenship.

Canadians have demanded that their immigration and refugee systems not only be fair and effective but efficient and well managed. Bill C-44 represents a careful, reasoned approach to the principles of fairness and tolerance with the balance of the respect of the rule of law.

Bill C-44 closes loopholes that unscrupulous people have exploited. It gives the enforcement authorities the means to remove the thugs who would abuse our society, abuse our people and dishonour the name of new Canadians everywhere.

At the same time, we will honour the millions of new Canadians who over the years have built this country. We will honour our ancestors by forcing those who choose lawlessness to pay for their actions.

We will not open our doors and hearts to those who have little interest in contributing to our country's society in a positive way. We will not open our doors and hearts to those who seek to manipulate and pervert the refugee system.

We will do this because our newcomers deserve no less from us than that we as people of Canada expect of ourselves.

Canada does not tolerate lawlessness. That is our collective word. We will demonstrate that our sentiment about freedom, rights, tolerance, openness, and generosity are not merely words but ironclad pillars of character.

In closing, Bill C-44 is not about punishment. It is about standing by our word. It is about delivering on the promises that every Canadian and every immigrant to this country has ever made. We owe our new Canadians no less than we owe ourselves.

Equality November 1st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, 65 years ago Canadian women won the right to be legally recognized as persons.

On Monday of this week, five Canadian women were honoured with the Governor General's Award in recognition of their outstanding contribution toward the promotion of women's equality.

I want to congratulate and thank Shirley Carr, Dr. Rose Charlie, Alice Girard, Morag O'Brien and Dodi Robb for their dedication and determination.

While women in Canada have made significant advances since 1929 they still have a long way to go. We need only look at the representation in this Chamber to see the distance they still have to go.

I would encourage all members of this House and all Canadians to continue to work for the advancement of Canadian women in every sphere of life and in pursuit of the goal of equality.

Human Rights October 25th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning his meeting with the home affairs minister for India tomorrow, Wednesday, October 26.

There are many Canadians who are concerned about human rights in India. The human rights report and the Asia watch report have both detailed violations.

Does the minister intend to discuss these with the home affairs minister for India when he meets with him tomorrow?

WOMEN MPs October 18th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the member for Beaver River suggested in her statement that some women MPs on the government side were not duly elected.

The residents of Beaches-Woodbine are well informed on their democratic rights as citizens of Canada. After six months of meeting and discussing with them the Liberal agenda as outlined in the red book and after six months of evaluating my credentials and preparedness for public office, the voters of Beaches-Woodbine gave me 9,000 votes more than the next closest candidate.

It would seem that the member has forgotten a very important event that took place in October 1993 which is called an election.